Reporting and transparency in laboratory animal science: Past achievements, present concerns and future directions.

IF 1.3 4区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Penny S Reynolds, Esther J Pearl
{"title":"Reporting and transparency in laboratory animal science: Past achievements, present concerns and future directions.","authors":"Penny S Reynolds, Esther J Pearl","doi":"10.1177/00236772261462343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Transparent reporting of animal research is both a scientific and ethical imperative and is linked to both research quality and the principles of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement (3Rs). Persistent concerns about poor reproducibility, limited translation and research waste have driven reforms in reporting standards and data-sharing requirements. However, despite considerable progress over the past 60 years, substantial gaps remain. Many published studies still lack essential methodological detail, such as animal characteristics, welfare measures, bias minimization methods (such as randomization and blinding), and sample size justification. Non-reporting of negative or null results further distorts the evidence base. A major barrier to change has been inadequate training of researchers in best practices for experimental design and statistical analysis. We describe how standardized reporting frameworks can promote research quality and highlight tools available to assist the researcher in implementing best practices in study design, reporting, and data accessibility. Over the next decade, emerging applications such as automated compliance tools and AI-assisted screening will offer scalable approaches to adoption of reporting standards. Preclinical science itself will be profoundly altered by advances in alternative models, open data, and linked machine-readable research outputs that will shift the research culture from isolated studies to an integrated cumulative evidence ecosystem. However, an expanded evidence base will be of value only if methodological quality is prioritized over novelty. Embedding best practices at study inception coupled with transparency will enhance reproducibility, reduce waste, and strengthen the reliability and translational value of animal research.</p>","PeriodicalId":18013,"journal":{"name":"Laboratory Animals","volume":" ","pages":"236772261462343"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laboratory Animals","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772261462343","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Transparent reporting of animal research is both a scientific and ethical imperative and is linked to both research quality and the principles of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement (3Rs). Persistent concerns about poor reproducibility, limited translation and research waste have driven reforms in reporting standards and data-sharing requirements. However, despite considerable progress over the past 60 years, substantial gaps remain. Many published studies still lack essential methodological detail, such as animal characteristics, welfare measures, bias minimization methods (such as randomization and blinding), and sample size justification. Non-reporting of negative or null results further distorts the evidence base. A major barrier to change has been inadequate training of researchers in best practices for experimental design and statistical analysis. We describe how standardized reporting frameworks can promote research quality and highlight tools available to assist the researcher in implementing best practices in study design, reporting, and data accessibility. Over the next decade, emerging applications such as automated compliance tools and AI-assisted screening will offer scalable approaches to adoption of reporting standards. Preclinical science itself will be profoundly altered by advances in alternative models, open data, and linked machine-readable research outputs that will shift the research culture from isolated studies to an integrated cumulative evidence ecosystem. However, an expanded evidence base will be of value only if methodological quality is prioritized over novelty. Embedding best practices at study inception coupled with transparency will enhance reproducibility, reduce waste, and strengthen the reliability and translational value of animal research.

实验动物科学的报告和透明度:过去的成就,目前的关注和未来的方向。
透明的动物研究报告是科学和道德的要求,与研究质量和替代、减少和改进(3Rs)原则有关。对再现性差、翻译有限和研究浪费的持续担忧推动了报告标准和数据共享要求的改革。然而,尽管过去60年来取得了相当大的进展,但仍然存在巨大差距。许多已发表的研究仍然缺乏必要的方法学细节,如动物特征、福利措施、最小化偏倚方法(如随机化和盲法)和样本量证明。不报告阴性或无效结果进一步扭曲了证据基础。改变的一个主要障碍是研究人员在实验设计和统计分析的最佳实践方面培训不足。我们描述了标准化报告框架如何提高研究质量,并强调了可用于帮助研究人员在研究设计、报告和数据可访问性方面实施最佳实践的工具。在接下来的十年里,自动化合规工具和人工智能辅助筛选等新兴应用将为采用报告标准提供可扩展的方法。临床前科学本身将被替代模型、开放数据和关联的机器可读研究成果的进步所深刻改变,这将把研究文化从孤立的研究转变为一个综合的累积证据生态系统。然而,只有当方法质量优先于新颖性时,扩大的证据基础才会有价值。在研究开始时就采用最佳实践,加上透明度,将提高可重复性,减少浪费,并加强动物研究的可靠性和转化价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Laboratory Animals
Laboratory Animals 生物-动物学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The international journal of laboratory animal science and welfare, Laboratory Animals publishes peer-reviewed original papers and reviews on all aspects of the use of animals in biomedical research. The journal promotes improvements in the welfare or well-being of the animals used, it particularly focuses on research that reduces the number of animals used or which replaces animal models with in vitro alternatives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书